{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7268f", "proof": "sha256:49e060eb9e54a79566490664205ff768902d2d58968f3a4631e8451ee98fddea", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "No. 24-2123", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "FRANKIE NELSON,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "COUNTY OF COOK,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "No. 19-cv-06146 — Martha M. Pacold, Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 2025 — DECIDED AUGUST 25, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before ROVNER, SCUDDER and KOLAR, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Frankie Nelson worked at Provi-", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "dent Hospital, part of the Cook County Health and Hospital", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "System, from 1997 until she voluntarily retired in 2010. In Jan-", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "uary 2020, she filed this suit in the district court, alleging that", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Cook County violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Equal", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The district court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2 No. 24-2123", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "On appeal, Nelson challenges only summary judgment as to", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "the Title VII claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Nelson was hired in 1997 at Provident Hospital for the po-", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "sition of Environmental Services Supervisor, a position later", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "renamed Building Services Supervisor. That job was a union", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "position with a fixed hourly rate and eligibility for overtime", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "pay. In October 2004, Nelson received a raise and promotion", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "to the position of Building Custodian I, also a union position,", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "and remained in that position until her retirement in 2010. In", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "August 2002, Nelson was recognized to be the Acting Assis-", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "tant Director of Environmental Services, and beginning in", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "2003 she split the duties of that position with Henry White,", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "who was a Building Services Supervisor. They performed", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "those duties in addition to their regular job duties, with each", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "performing different functions of that position. Nelson served", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "as manager of operations and White managed the administra-", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "tive functions of that position. That continued until August", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "2005, when Nate Gordon became Director of Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "Services (“Director”) at Provident, at which time Gordon be-", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "came Nelson’s direct supervisor. Gordon succeeded Jerry", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Brown, who was the Director of Environmental Services from", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "September 2000 until June 2005, and Nelson reported to him", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "during that time.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "In her Title VII claim, Nelson alleges that she received dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "criminatory treatment on the basis of sex, and specifically that", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "she was paid less than similarly situated males. Her claim of", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "pay disparity based on sex discrimination focuses solely on", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "the period of time from 2002 to 2005. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on that", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "claim, and Nelson raises two challenges to the grant of sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "No. 24-2123 3", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "mary judgment. First, she argues that the district court con-", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "sidered her claim only under the McDonnell Douglas burden-", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "shifting analytical framework and failed to also apply the to-", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "tality of the evidence approach set forth in Ortiz. See McDon-", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "nell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) and Ortiz", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 766 (7th Cir. 2016).", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "And second, she contends that the court erred in concluding", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "that White was not a valid comparator.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "Turning to the first challenge, the district court in its oral", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "decision explained that discrimination could be demon-", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "strated using the McDonnell Douglas framework or the totality", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "of the evidence standard set forth in Ortiz. The court explicitly", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "noted that under Ortiz, “the core question in any employment", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "discrimination case is simply whether the evidence would", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "the discharge or other adverse employment [action] at issue”", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "and that “[w]hen using this approach, courts ask only", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "whether the totality of the evidence shows discrimination, es-", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "chewing any framework or formula.” Dist. Ct. Transcript 5-", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "30-24 at 8–9 (quoting Johnson v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 2022 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "540758, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2022)); see also Ortiz, 834 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "at 766. And the court further recognized that the ultimate", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "question is always whether the evidence would permit a rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "sonable factfinder to conclude that there would have been no", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "disparity in pay if the protected characteristic was different", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "and everything else remained the same. Id. at 10. Although", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "the court discussed the McDonnell Douglas factors at length in", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "analyzing Nelson’s claim, that was because Nelson sought to", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "rely upon the difference in pay between herself and other em-", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "ployees to provide an inference of discrimination sufficient to", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "survive summary judgment. That approach employs the", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "4 No. 24-2123", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "McDonnell Douglas framework to establish the inference of", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "discrimination, and the district court properly focused on that", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "test in assessing Nelson’s claim. In fact, the district court rec-", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "ognized that “‘in the wake of Ortiz, the McDonnell Douglas", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "framework is just a formal way of analyzing a discrimination", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "case when a certain kind of circumstantial evidence, evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "that similarly situated employees not in the plaintiff’s pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "tected class were treated better, would permit a jury to infer", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "discriminatory intent.’” Dist. Ct. Tr. at 9, App. at A-11, quot-", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "ing Lewis v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 858, 867 (7th Cir. 2018). Because", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Nelson sought to rely on similarly situated employees to es-", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "tablish the inference of discrimination, the court properly ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "dressed whether that inference was supportable under the", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "McDonnell Douglas factors. There is no support in the record", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "for the argument that the court misunderstood the legal", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "standard or failed to properly consider it.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Nelson simply failed to produce sufficient facts support-", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "ing her claim of discrimination, and fails to point out suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "cient facts on appeal as well. She relied in the district court on", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "the argument that three other employees similarly-situated to", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "her received higher pay than her. Those employees were", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "White, who shared the Acting Assistant Director position", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "with her, and Gordon and Brown, who each held the position", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "of Director. The district court rejected that argument because", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "those employees were not similarly-situated to her, in that", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "they did not have the same job duties, education, or experi-", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "ence as she had, and that as to White, Nelson did not provide", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "evidence supporting the alleged wage disparity.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "On appeal, Nelson focuses on White but fails to address", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "the basis upon which the district court rejected that argument.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "The district court held that Nelson did not submit pay stubs", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "No. 24-2123 5", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "or records for White which would support her claim of a dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "parity in compensation between White and Nelson or would", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "create a genuine issue of fact as to that issue. On that basis", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "alone, the comparison with White could not support a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "of pay disparity. The court then proceeded to hold that even", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "if Nelson had submitted such evidence, and there was a dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "crepancy in pay, White was still not a valid comparator. The", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "court expounded that they performed different functions in", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "the job that they shared with vastly different duties, and they", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "did not have comparable experience, education, or qualifica-", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "tions in that White possessed an associate’s, bachelor’s, and", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "master’s degree and Nelson lacked a college degree.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Nelson on appeal addresses only the second argument.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "She does not even acknowledge the court’s holding that she", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "failed to provide evidence to support her claim of a pay dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "parity with White, and accordingly does not point our court", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "to any evidence in the record that would refute that holding", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "by the district court. Because that holding is unchallenged in", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "this court and provides an independent basis to reject the", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "comparison with White, we need not address Nelson’s chal-", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "lenge to the alternative holding by the district court that", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "White and Nelson did not have similar jobs or qualifications.", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "The failure to provide evidence of White’s compensation", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "alone prevents a finding of disparate pay as to White. See", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "Trask v. Rodriguez, 854 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "that the appellant failed to challenge the district court’s rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "sons for granting summary judgment and therefore waived", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "any claim of error).", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Nelson makes only cursory references to the other two al-", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "leged comparators in her brief, Gordon and Brown, who each", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "served as Directors. She complains briefly that she was more", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "6 No. 24-2123", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "capable than either of them of performing the job of Director,", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "but that she never received the promotion and pay of a Direc-", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "tor. Her complaint, however, does not allege discrimination", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "in promotions or hiring, but asserts only disparate pay for", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "comparable work, and she does not assert that she ever ap-", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "plied for the job of Director. In general, in order to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "that a comparator is similarly situated, the plaintiff must pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "sent evidence of “‘enough common factors … to allow for a", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "meaningful comparison in order to divine whether inten-", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "tional discrimination was at play.’” Coleman v. Donahue, 667", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "F.3d 835, 847 (7th Cir. 2012), (quoting Barricks v. Eli Lilly and", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "Co., 481 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2007)). As to her claim of dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "parate pay, the court properly held that Brown and Gordon", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "were not valid comparators. They each held a different posi-", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "tion than Nelson, reported to a different supervisor, and were", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "in fact her supervisors. As such, they were not engaged in ma-", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "terially-similar jobs such that a difference in pay could evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "dence discrimination.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Accordingly, the court applied the correct law and", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defend-", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "ants. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" } ], "word_count": 1562, "cites": [ "411 U.S. 792", "834 F.3d 760", "909 F.3d 858", "854 F.3d 941", "667\nF.3d 835", "481 F.3d 556" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "7636c0d658716895ff6007987e34bcbadacff309bbbbdf98beb2c846b93f09b9", "source_url": "https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2025/D08-25/C:24-2123:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3415039:S:0", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T12:55:15.155+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25" }, "hash": "sha256:49e060eb9e54a79566490664205ff768902d2d58968f3a4631e8451ee98fddea", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T11:41:33", "content_hash": "sha256:49e060eb9e54a79566490664205ff768902d2d58968f3a4631e8451ee98fddea", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T12:45:23.317Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-24-2123-2025-08-25" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }